Activists Want Chimp Declared a 'Person'

[Nite_Hawk]

Why not? It's obvious for most species, but when it comes to dolphins and the great apes, the line is no longer so clear.


We do not have a moral obligation to stop two humans from killing each other, either, especially if there is a clear risk to our own life. Most people would in most cases feel compelled to, yes, but I see no obligation.

We certainly do have the moral obligation to stop two humans from killing each other. That's the entire purpose behind our laws against murder. You may not be personally responsible for apprehending the people involved, but you are absolutely required to notify the authorities. Failing to do so is a crime, at least in the United States.

Nite_Hawk

 

[pjbliverpool]

On the other hand, I do not believe that animals, including chimps, have the same right to life. Humans do not have a moral obligation to stop two chimps from killing each other.

Nite_Hawk

Kinda see what your saying there and I agree that while we have a moral obligation as a society to protect members of our own species from harming each other, that doesn't extend to other species.

However I do think that if we are morally obliged to stop humans hurting/killing other humans unnecessarily then that obligation should extend to humans hurting other animals unnecessarily. What the animals do to each other though is frankly none of our business. Bottom line is I think we should be responsible for the actions of our own species regardless of whether they are directed within or without.

Fair enough, declaring chimps to be people probably isn't the right way to go about it but the impression I get is that they are doing it to shortcut the assignment of certain basic rights which may take much longer or prove impossible to gain via a more "proper" route.

 

[EasyRaider]

That's the entire purpose behind our laws against murder. You may not be personally responsible for apprehending the people involved, but you are absolutely required to notify the authorities. Failing to do so is a crime, at least in the United States.

That's a special case, not a general obligation.

If two people, alone on the moon, were shooting at each other, would you feel obliged to go there and stop them?

 

[EasyRaider]

Bottom line is I think we should be responsible for the actions of our own species regardless of whether they are directed within or without.

But why our own species? Why not restrict to our own family, local community, nation or ethnical group? And why not extend to all primates or all beings who meet certain requirements?

Say there was another species of humans who lived among us and abided the same laws. Would you feel responsibility for their actions?

 

[pjbliverpool]

But why our own species? Why not restrict to our own family, local community, nation or ethnical group? And why not extend to all primates or all beings who meet certain requirements?

Say there was another species of humans who lived among us and abided the same laws. Would you feel responsibility for their actions?

Im speaking from a high level rather than a specific one. I.e. I certainly don't feel responsible for how any single human treats any other ** EDIT ** actually I do feel responsible in so far as I feel its humanitys responsibily to punish that individual for immoral actions and thus by default, I share some of that responsibility. In fact the jury system operates on that principle ** END EDIT ** but more generalised I feel responsible for the actions of the human race as a whole, or certainly the sections of it which I play a hand in governing (though democracy) and thus which represent me to the world.

Bottom line is I believe humanity should govern and be held responsible for its interactions with itself (as a whole or as seperate groups/nations) as well as its interaction with other species while how other species interact with themselves or each other is none of our concern.

How we choose to interact with each other regardless of how different those rules are between cultures should have a strong baring as far as it makes sense on our interactions with other species. e.g. if its wrong to kill a human unnecessarily, it should also be wrong to kill another species unnecessarily and animals should be treated with respect so far as it makes sense given their level of comprehension etc....

 

[Nite_Hawk]

That's a special case, not a general obligation.

If two people, alone on the moon, were shooting at each other, would you feel obliged to go there and stop them?

If by some bizarre coincidence I knew this was happening before the authorities of my country did, I would certainly inform them about the situation.

Nite_Hawk

 

[EasyRaider]

We are all responsible for our own actions (and inaction!), but beyond that it gets hairy.

As far as our responsibility to police others go, I claim setting the border at our own species is artificial and nearsighted. A dog owner is to a large degree responsible to keep the dog from biting and killing. Similarly, if there was a practical and efficient way to teach wild animals to not attack humans, then it could be reasonable to hold the affiliated people accountable in some way. Or if in the future we find ourselves living in a society with aliens or sentient machines, then we will be responsible for them in the same way we are responsible for members of our society today. But if a human in some secluded jungle village decides to kill another, how can the outside world hold responsibility for that in any meaningful way?

 

[Nite_Hawk]

But if a human in some secluded jungle village decides to kill another, how can the outside world hold responsibility for that in any meaningful way?

This is exactly what's happening right now in Darfur, and yes, we have a moral obligation to stop the genocide that is happening there.

Nite_Hawk

 

[EasyRaider]

This is exactly what's happening right now in Darfur

No, not even close. Genocide over a long period of time is very different from a single killing.

Now, how far must we go to stop it? Spend all our free time? 2 hours a week? Donate all our money except what we need to survive? 5% of savings and net income? Must we go there ourselves if necessary?

The answer, of course, is that everyone must decide for themselves how much they want to do. The vast majority, including me, is doing nothing, we simply leave it to our government, most of which aren't doing much. Have we all miserably failed our obligation?

Why must we care about people in a totally different part of the world who we don't know at all? Because God commands it? Because we would want them to care if the situation was reversed? Because helping might possibly have some positive long term effect on our own situation?

I do care, but I suspect I really should ignore the situation and focus on my own life.

 

[soylent]

Only slightly less sane than declaring a corporation a person.

 

[Dresden]

I'll consider them human when they can beat me in a dual in WoW then laugh at me over Vent.

 

[StefanS]

I'll consider them human when they can beat me in a dual in WoW then laugh at me over Vent.

Well, it only takes a monkey to do that ;-)

 

[NovemberMike]

If the monkey owns the money, who has the legal right to spend it?